Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] [Boost-users] Installation issue

From: pps (i-love-spam_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-06 15:17:16

Micha Bieber wrote:
> Hallo pps,
> 
> Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 5:01:10 PM, you wrote:
> p> Probably you are not that experienced with c++, mayby c only?.. My
> p> experience is about 2 years in programming and ~1y in c++ and I had 0
> p> problems installing and using boost on winxp & freebsd. At least if you
> p> that experienced you should know that there better versions of vc around
> p> for years and it's probably time to check them - with vc6 many boost 
> p> libs don't compile (libs are ok, compiler can't handle them)
> 
> [...]
> 
> p> Anyway EVERYTHING is explained really well for starters, just read the
> p> manual
> 
> [...]
> 
> p> You should read docs and it's enough to overcome this problem...
> 
> I think, we talk about different things. I'm not to lazy to read the
> docs, I'm also able to fiddle out the things in the end. It was in no my
> intention to boast about my experience. I'm using all the other
> compilers too etc., etc. The newest one isn't always the best for me.
> VC6 is sufficient for many things. I'm not in need to use partial
> template specialization for every project.
> 
> What I'm talking about, is the picture for someone completely new to the
> library and the first impression he has. And here I miss some things.
> RTFM is not the answer to all things, if I can make my manual better. A
> library is for use. I'm completely aware of the fact, that boost isn't
> finished. Laying all the development issues aside, there is also the
> smootheness when dealing with other aspects e.g. installation.
> BTW, its most of the time also a substantial hint to the inherent
> structure of software, if it doesn't feel neat from outside. It's a
> thing like the relationship between formulas and Paul Dirac. Personally
> I find the spectrum for boost a bit too broad, and splitting a library,
> new merging at a different level, splitting again etc. are completely
> common stages in software development (see Qt for a current example).
> I would like signalize this impression to someone, feeling responsible
> for these things, because I come - almost - from the outside, regarding
> boost, but surely not C++.
> Developer notoriously ignore these things. I know it, I'm a developer.
> But after some more years in the business, these things become more
> valuable to you. Thats, what experience really provides you with .. ;-)
> 

I also used MANY libraries becase my c experience is larger than my c++ 
:), and I really feel that boost library is one of the best libs around 
and it's not "..boost isn't finished...". It's work in progress and 
every release version is quite finished product.
It's difficult to compare boost to qt (in my opinion) becase qt is 
related to some particular domain (gui etc) however it has many thing in 
it but all of them are interconnected. Boost is an umbrella of very 
useful libraries http://boost.org/libs/libraries.htm (so, boost is a 
collection of libs, and qt is a framework) and boost libraries do not 
necessarily have any dependencies between each other.
What do you mean by splitting library etc..?? I personally find boost bo 
be a very neatly packaged library. I'm sure after you get yourself 
familiar with boost you'll change your opinion.

> Micha
> 
>